We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Hmm. Somehow, {thousands of acres that were previously fallow or used to grow food}, Discing, planting, spraying-usually more than once, fertilizing with sulfur and other petroleum derived fertilizers (because there's no sulfer in diesel fuel anymore and it's a necessary micronutrient), harvesting, driving the crop to the mill in diesel fueled machines, drying, processing using large amounts electricity produced by burning coal.... is a negative energy loss and bad for the planet.

We hadn't driven across Iowa for years and were shocked to see the one-crop wonder it has become. This practice over time must deteriorate the soil, not to mention dependence on one product for one's worth will be devastating when some "new" solution replaces ethanol.

Government seriously needs to get out of agriculture, be it bee-keeping or sugar and peanut subsidies. The cost of sugar is one reason candy manufacturers have left for Mexico. This distortion of markets leads to ineffective practices and bubbles based bad economics. Bubbles pop.

Should people be able to hold rallies anywhere at any time without a permit? The courts have long held that permits can be required. However, the government must be neutral regarding the content of that speech. It can't restrict Occupy gatherings unless it also restricts religious prayer gatherings.

Oh my god, he's got a sign. Put down the sign or I'll shoot. Step away from the sign and put your hands on your head. Someone call 911, this man has a bible! But look, over their the demonstrators are intimidating people because of their race! No, that's OK. That's just Black Lives Matters fighting against white privilege. But their assaulting them and throwing things at them. They deserve that because of something that happened 100 years ago or something.

It was a beautiful puff piece on the refugees. Notably absent was the increase in crimes for towns where they settle refugees. Also absent was that each refuge family costs the taxpayers about $5000 a month. No mention of the organizations who both advocate for more refugees AND make profit from each refugee we take in. Increased crime, introduction of diseases we thought were gone from the 1st world, children that grow up to hate this country and become terrorists, refusal to adapt or adopt their new country. And yet the story would have you believe these refugees are just like the Polish and Italian immigrants of the last century. What a mistake we are making. Watch for it. The "random" attacks that are unreported or misreported, the students who refuse to stand for the national anthem in school, the sudden and unexplained increase in serious infectious diseases, the tainted food when the yogurt factory only hires recent immigrants/refugees. Why didn't one of the many rich and lightly populated Arab states welcome in these refugees??? Why did we choose to do it and do you remember any discussion leading up to that choice???

Donna Brazile just made a startling admission in her defense of Clinton Foundation

Well, duh. This isn't restricted to Clinton or Democrats. For instance, many of Bush's campaign donors stayed the night at the White House or Camp David, giving them direct access to the ear of the President. George W Bush even raised millions of dollars for his library while still president, donations which are not required to be disclosed.

Some regulation could help — something Republicans have long resisted—, but ultimately, it's human nature that donors are friends and friends are donors.

"The man had a sign, an invitation to gather for prayer." Oh! The horror! He must be stopped!

"Should people be able to hold rallies anywhere at any time without a permit?" Yes, with obvious exceptions: amplified sound, disrupting others (within reason, those with opposed beliefs, may always feel disrupted), impeding traffic, extra.

From the NYC General Assembly website: "A permit is not necessary to march on the sidewalk, so long as demonstrators do not block pedestrian passage, building entrances or streets. Demonstrators should also leave at least one-half of the sidewalk free for use." Note this is in lefty la la land of New York City. I'm sure most places in the country are the same. As it should be.

Does the Zach Borg believe in liberty or not? Past experience has demonstrated that it is incapable of simply answering yes, or no.

Sure. But your own citation indicates that the government can restrict the time, place, and manner of assembly. Notably, the restrictions must be content neutral, so the fact that the speech at issue was prayer is irrelevant.

The man was not a part of the university, so he is under more restrictive rules than student or faculty. The area is not restricted for students or faculty to gather.

B Hammer: Note that your original question asked should people be able to hold rallies without permits.

Yes, and we largely agree. Restrictions should have a valid purpose, and should err on the side of openness. Your citation notes that protests in the street require a permit, but not on the sidewalk as long as they don't block foot traffic, for instance.

In this case, students are not generally restricted from gathering in the area.

We are being gaslighted about the efficacy of various forms of medical treatment, in the interest of reducing the sorts of care that are legally required to be delivered under our incipient nationalized single payer health care plan.

You may remember controversies a while back regarding the effectiveness of annual mammograms and prostate cancer blood tests. Why, they're useless! They only detect a fairly small number of cancers!

The implication is we should stop paying for them with 'insurance,' or as increasingly is the case, with taxpayer money. Stop needless testing! Stop paying for unproven treatments! These sound like great ideas. The problem is a lot of medical things that are done are based on hunches, on low probabilities, or on things that are so well known as to not need extensive medical testing to deploy effectively.

With the cancer screenings - sure, there's a low probability of any given person having breast or prostate cancer at right this moment. But a lot of women do get breast cancer, and as many as a third of men get prostate cancer in one form or another if they live long enough. (Apparently, the 'off' switch is tucked up our rear ends, gents... odd, that...) If you are the person who has cancer - and there are many hundreds of thousands of such people - then paying for the screening even though it won't be needed (like flood insurance) seems prudent.

Other more extreme examples are out there. Ads touting the efficacy of aspirin for headaches are on the outs because there's just no recent peer reviewed studies showing aspirin cures headaches. Sure, we know they do, it's been known ever since native Americans in pre-Columbian America chewed willow bark for its curative properties - but there's no recent academic medical history of it so it must be fraudulent.

The idea that flossing and brushing don't really matter much is a product of this "if it hasn't been proved recently it ain't true" cost-cutting, medical regulatory mindset. I've had cavities detected and fixed before the teeth crumbled on my semi-annual visit, versus my big annual visit (at which X-rays are taken and more problems identified). My dentist can tell if I've been flossing or not because there's less rotting ex-food stuck under my gums when I've been flossing, and as she points out, that rotting food right there causes tooth rot - though again, it's only what she's witnessed for the last 20 years, it's not recently proven in a peer reviewed academic study.

Be very careful about taking advice from these news articles about how medical practices are ineffective. A lot of this new 'science' is driven by a weird sort of excessively rational logic, which is in turn motivated by the government's effort to reduce the amount of treatment it needs to pay for as the insurance system gets nationalized. Suffice to say, Rahm Emmanual's brother Zeke, who heads one of the cost cutting 'scientific' panels, does not have your interests at heart. He really only cares about cutting costs so that ordinary medical care, in the quantity and quality we've become accustomed to, does not undercut the left's health care nationalization politics. It is a good thing to look for efficiencies in the delivery of health care and to maximize how far the tax dollars spent on health care go, but this is a cynical and callous approach to cost-cutting, and a disingenuous one at that. You can expect the recommendations from all these new non-findings to continue to revolve around offering less health care, fewer pharmaceuticals, and to let more people die since attempting to cure them is not always a high percentage shot. Because, science.

Interesting article on evidence-based Dentistry. Of course there are still Dentists that use mercury fillings. I've read a few articles from people who suffered from heavy metal poisoning from the the filling decay.

The thing that gets me is the fluoride recommendation...another toxic substance.

"Drinking fluoride in your water to prevent cavities, is similar to drinking sunscreen in your water to prevent sunburn"

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: